1 / 16

Is the 802.11 MAC sufficient for wireless high speed mesh LANs?

Is the 802.11 MAC sufficient for wireless high speed mesh LANs?. Guido R. Hiertz , Lothar Stibor ComNets Chair of Communication Networks Aachen University Germany Jörg Habetha Philips Research Aachen Germany. 802.11 Basics. Fixed interframe spaces (IFSs) aSlot, SIFS

felix
Download Presentation

Is the 802.11 MAC sufficient for wireless high speed mesh LANs?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is the 802.11 MAC sufficient for wireless high speed mesh LANs? Guido R. Hiertz, Lothar Stibor ComNets Chair of Communication Networks Aachen University Germany Jörg Habetha Philips Research Aachen Germany Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  2. 802.11 Basics • Fixed interframe spaces (IFSs) • aSlot, SIFS • All IFS others are sums of the above • Multiple PHY modes • E.g. 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g • IFS constant for all PHY modes within same standard • 802.11 relies here on Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  3. Basic calculations • Simple scenario • One receiving station, one transmitting station • Backoff duration equal toDIFS + 7.5*aSlot • Error free wireless medium Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  4. 802.11a BPSK ½ Highly efficient PHY efficiency Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  5. OFDM PHY IFS according to 802.11a Assuming infinite PHY speed IFS limiting throughput Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  6. OFDM based Preamble = 12µs Header = 3µs tSYM = 3µs aSlot = 4µs SIFS = 8µs 1024Mb/s PHY Assuming new PHY Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  7. OFDM based Preamble = 9.375µs Header = 2.188µs tSYM = 312.5ns aSlot = 10µs SIFS = 10µs 200Mb/s PHY 802.15.3a PHY Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  8. Performance problems • Static overhead (e.g. OFDM) • Independent of PHY speed (IFS etc.) • Protocol overhead • One ACK per one DATA frame • 802.11e Block ACK very important to increase efficiency! • Often transceiver turnaround • Duration limited by hardware • Constant preamble duration (OFDM) • Can be become quite large compared to DATA Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  9. Idle channel is unused capacity Develop collision free MAC Avoid signaling for channel competition Piggyback additional information Use all available information Channel busy histogram (11-03/340r1a) Listen to neighbors QoS sensitive traffic may be “predictable” RTS but no CTS reception enables parallel transmission Design issues for future MAC Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  10. Higher data rate → lower reception range Much bandwidth at high frequencies High attenuation, especially walls etc. Avoid small frames Concatenate frames Multiplex data Interference range determined by transmission power Regardless of PHY mode Incremental redundancy Always highest PHY Combine retransmitted & failed frame MAC design for high speed PHY Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  11. MAC regarding high attenuation • Use attenuation to the benefit • Spatial reuse possible • Multi hop support needed • High speed links with limited range Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  12. Multi hop MAC issues • Avoid hidden station problem • Avoid “Neighborhood capture” (11-01/596r1) • Multiplex data on streams • Avoid separate transmissions on same route Multiplex Data at forwarder Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  13. Multi hop needs routing • No information exchange between layers • MAC layer routing instead L3 routing • New routing aware of • PHY mode • Transmission power • Interference level, etc. Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  14. WLAN drawbacks on TCP TCP transmission window MAC retransmissions Terminate TCP at AP Possible? Connection tracking? How to replace TCP on wireless link? WLAN aware of applications? VoIP Discard than retransmit Concatenation of frames MAC regarding higher layers Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  15. Conclusions • 802.11 MAC worked very well • Highly efficient at low speed PHY • Drawbacks at high speed • Today’s “ethernet” (802.3) is switched • WLAN is different • Future WLAN will need new MAC • Support for multi hop, MAC routing • Increased efficiency • Avoid “legacy” backoff Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

  16. Thank you for you attention hiertz@ieee.org Guido R. Hiertz, ComNets, Aachen University

More Related